Ocean acidification

Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to
marine life?

By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)
www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
(best viewed in a window as wide as a page. Open links in a new tab.)

As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they
may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat
the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story?
Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification
another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are
the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the
carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding
of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails. Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean
acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if
there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all. It is equally worrisome
that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties
are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never
time not to be skeptical.

the main part for understanding ocean acidification and the reasoning
behind it, deals with the carbon cycle, how acid the oceans are and by
how much it varies, evidence of acidification, the carbonate system and
why it is feared that acidification could cause disaster. (31 pages)

part 3 mentions all the missing science, uncertainties and misconceptions.
It gives a good idea of where the science of ocean acidification is at
and how much credence we can attach to the many fears that have been published.
(3 pages)

Corrupt scientific institutions and their rogue scientists. It is time
to hold individuals to account and to mention their names. Corruption is
always about individuals. A collection of absurd articles. (10 pages)

IntroductionThe oceans have an 'acidity' measured on a pH scale of around 8.0,
a figure larger than neutral pH=7.0, which means that they are alkaline
or basic. The word alkalinity thus means the same as acidity. The pH of
the oceans has been a mystery and remains a mystery because it depends
on many factors. For instance, oceanographers think that the alkalinity
of the sea depends on a chemical balance with rocks, particularly limestone
rock. From this one can compute that the ocean's pH should be around 8
and that it has not varied by much over hundreds of millions of years.

One
of the important variables in this chemical balance is carbon dioxide CO2.
As CO2 dissolves in water, the water becomes mildly acidic (clean rain
water has a pH=5.6 to 6; in the diagram 5.7), enough in fact to dissolve
calcium from soils and to create dripstone formations inside caves while
it evaporates. Intuitively one may think that a doubling in CO2 would result
in a doubling of acidity but this is not the case as this graph shows.
Without CO2, pure rain water would have a neutral pH of 7.0, and that is
where the graph begins on left. Initially CO2 is very willing to
dissolve, thereby rapidly acidifying the otherwise pure water, but eventually
this slows down. The red dot is placed at the current situation with CO2
around 350ppm at average temperature and pressure. From here a doubling
in CO2 will contribute to a much reduced acidification of only 0.15 pH
units or an increase in acidity of around 30%. Note that this is not just
a theoretical curve but has been measured by titration. This behaviour
of CO2 also applies to sea water, but here the situation is much more complicated
due to the buffering effect of limestone.

In this equilibrium equation the double arrow <=> means 'in balance'
(equilibrium) or that the chemical reaction can move both ways. The symbols
H, O and C stand for hydrogen, oxygen and carbon and their numbers are
given by the digit following. The superscripted + and - and 2- symbol denotes
their ionised states with loose electrons. In the right hand side are more
H+ ions, which are measured by a pH meter as 'more acidic'.
Of the four 'states' that CO2 can assume, carbondioxide CO2 is a mere 1%,
bicarbonate HCO3 is 93% and carbonate CO3 8% . But the total amount of
carbon dissolved in the oceans is just short of 40,000Gt (Pg) compared
with less than 700Gt in the atmosphere. The sea is a massive carbon dioxide
reservoir, in balance with an even more massive limestone reservoir of
40,000,000Gt carbon in marine sediments .

Note
that the above equations depend somewhat on pressure and also on temperature.
The graph shows how CO2 dissolves according to temperature in an atmosphere
of pure CO2, but degassing can be assumed to behave similarly for
lesser concentrations (60/2000= 3% per degree C; some say 4%). Applied
to an ocean of 38,000 Gt CO2, would equate to 1140Gt/ºC or 12/44 x
1140 = 311GtC/ºC. Note that gigaton Gt, one billion metric tonnes,
is the same measure as petagram Pg, but we'll use Gt in this chapter and
that the atmospher now holds about 700Gt carbon. [To convert from CO2 to
C, multiply by 12/44.] Note also that these measurements hold for pure
water and 100% CO2 and are not necessarily valid for sea water and low
concentrations of CO2. Note also that human emissions are about 7GtC per
year.

This equation is a gross simplification of the seawater system because
seawater has many more elements that are likely to play a role. One of
these is Calcium (Ca2+) which 'binds' with CO3 like: Ca2+
+ CO32- <=> CaCO3 to form limestone as in
corals and shells. There exist several forms of limestone, but this is
only a finer point (aragonite, calcite, magnesium calcite, ...). The production
of limestone by organisms is called calcification. De-calcification on
the other hand can be done either by organisms who calcify (echinoderms
for instance) or those who dissolve limestone (boring sponges, worms, molluscs,
many bacteria) and it can also happen chemically without organisms (coral
sand dissolving back into sea water).

It is thought that the carbondioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium
with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3
(or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium
exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is
10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3
is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium.
It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem
as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying
organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has
also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977).

The bit missing at the beginning is that CO2 (atmosphere) <=>
CO2 (sea water) or in other words, that the carbondioxide in the air
is in balance with that in the surface water, which has not been proved.
Note in this respect that rising water temperatures will expel CO2
from this huge reservoir and in doing so, also raise acidity.

It is reasoned that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, then
more of it will dissolve in the water, working all the way through the
chemical reactions, to an increase in acidity and an increase in carbonate
CO3. Scientists believe that the sea in pre-industrial times was 'saturated'
relative to dissolved limestone, and that recent increases in CO2 have
'desaturated' the sea (beginning in the antarctic sea), with possible dire
consequences for sea life. But we have observed that calcium skeletons
dissolve back into what scientists call 'saturated' CO3.

A valid comment from
a reader, Feb 2008Dear Dr. Anthoni,

I read part
of http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm and I believe a
found a significant flaw in it.You mention "It is thought
that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed
rock containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other
words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the
concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species
(90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the
sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept
that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases."

I used basic equilibrium
equations for ion dilution and found that the concentration of Ca2+ is
proportional to the square of the concentration of H+ (acidity) and inversely
proportional to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide. Now, because the
concentration of bicarbonate is immensely greater than the concentration
of H+, an increase of 10% in the pressure of carbon dioxide will result
in basically an increase of 10% in the concentration of H+. Because the
concentration of calcium grows with the square of the concentration of
H+, that would result in an increase of 10% in the concentration of Ca2+.
Now, what that means is that the calcium would come from rocks or from
biological calcium carbonate. By the way, the problem is that the concentration
of CO3 would decrease, and not increase. The sea would effectively suck
the CO3 from the organisms, releasing their Ca2+. So, you are right in
that an increase of CO3 would not be a problem, but an increase in CO2
would produce a decrease in CO3.

How
much CO2 comes down in rain?Assuming that a pH of 5.6
of a raindrop is caused by CO2, this equates to 1.18E-5 mol/L ~ 1.2E-2
mol/m3. Total average annual rainfall on Earth is estimated at 990mm ~
1m [Wikipedia], and the surface of our planet is 510E6 km2 = 5.1E14 m2.
Thus total annual rain volume = 5.1E14 m3, containing 6.1E12 mol CO2. One
mol CO2 = 44g or 4.4E-5 tonne. Thus in all rain, the amount of CO2 that
rains down is 268E7 t = 2.68 Gt = 0.73GtC. Which is a very small amount
and part of the 'balance' between ocean and atmosphere.

0704123: the shell of a shield limpet (Scutus antipodes)
is normally enclosed within its body, but once exposed to sea water, it
begins to dissolve. Here its growth rings have been etched out by nothing
more than clean salt water. Boring worms have also been at work. The limpet
is a calcifier and the seawater a decalcifier.

f019010: the pink knobbly mass is a crustose coralline alga,
spread like a single stony leaf over the underlying rock. Coralline algae
are the most important reef builders in the world, also in coral reefs.
Here the limestone has been drilled into by a yellow boring sponge Clione
celata. The pink alga is a calcifier and the yellow sponge a decalcifier.

f991224: shelly beaches disappearing everywhere in the world
because their resupply from live shells is disappearing as shellfish beds
and coral reefs are dying. Rainwater and seawater dissolve the shells,
broken shells and coral sand.

f046431: closeup of a coral wall at an exposed site (Niue)
shows an even matrix of coralline algae, drilled into by molluscs (piddocks).
No hard corals here. The holes are expanded by little sea urchins who come
out by night to graze the green algae that grow on the coralline 'paint'.

f046532: Porites massive corals form layer upon layer
with nothing inbetween. They are the main coral reef builders amongst the
corals. The reef is filled in by coralline algae. Notice how the coral
polyps are designed to catch sunlight rather than zooplankton. Note also
that no part of the skeleton is directly exposed to seawater.

f221523: ancient coral rock has been carved out by salt water
and rain, showing the original corals that lived there over 300,000 years
ago (Niue). The softer matrix of coralline algae has been decalcified by
very clean water. The detail shown in these excavated corals is indeed
amazing.

Scaremongering alarms
propagated by scientists and the mainstream media:

Coral reefs harbor some of the
world’s richest biodiversity; and 25% of all marine life has some part
of its life cycle associated with coral. As far as shelled organisms go,
it spells potential catastrophe for everything from minuscule zooplankton
to lobster. ”[Quoted from radioopensource.org]

Corals could become rare by
the middle of this century because of simultaneous increases in temperature
and decreases in carbonate concentration [Hoegh-Guldberg 2005]

Increasing acidity reduces the
availability of calcium carbonate from the water - which the creatures
rely on to produce their hard skeletons. Juvenile organisms could be most
susceptible to these changes.

Acidification may also directly
affect the growth and reproduction rates of fish, as well as affecting
the plankton populations which they rely on for food, with potentially
disastrous consequences for marine food webs.

In addition, nutrient concentrations
in surface waters of high-latitude regions are likely to fall, subsurface
waters become less oxygenated, and phytoplankton will experience increased
exposure to sunlight.” [Quoted from bbc.co.uk]

In a matter of decades, the
world's remaining coral reefs could be too brittle to withstand pounding
waves. Shells could become too fragile to protect their occupants. By the
end of the century, much of the polar ocean is expected to be as acidified
as the water that did such damage to the pteropods aboard the Discoverer.

Some marine biologists predict
that altered acid levels will disrupt fisheries by melting away the bottom
rungs of the food chain — tiny planktonic plants and animals that provide
the basic nutrition for all living things in the sea.

Within 50 to 100 years, there
could be severe consequences for marine calcifying organisms, which build
their external skeletal material out of calcium carbonate, the basic building
block of limestone.

The long lifetime of fossil
fuel carbon release implies that the anthropogenic climate perturbation
may have time to interact with ice sheets, methane clathrate deposits,
and glacial/interglacial climate dynamics.

The acidification of the ocean
could drive all known forms of coral to extinction by 2065

Extinction of 50% of the planet's
species by 2050 being a realistic possibility due to ocean acidification
and other mechanisms.

and so on . . . .

My personal experience with acidity in the ocean stems from many pH
measurements that led to the discovery of half a dozen elementary ecological
laws that, if confirmed, would turn the whole acid ocean debate on its
head. It would in fact send most publications on this subject to the dustbin.
That was in 2005, and mainstream scientists have not reacted since. So
let's review what these discoveries are about (read the DDA
chapter):

The most important ecological factor in the sea has been overlooked: the
guild of decomposing bacteria. They are very active and cause disease
and infection. The health of sea water depends on their numbers as all
marine organisms live in a delicate balance between the food that plankton
brings (soup) and the chance of dying from decomposing bacteria (sewage).
Each sea organism thus lives in a precarious balance between the good life
(thick soup) and a long life (thin sewage), which are in conflict with
one another. This is what I named the plankton balance.

Alkalinity in the ocean depends substantially on the plankton balance
in which the pH results from autotrophs (plants) using hydrogen ions and
driving the pH up, while decomposers return hydrogen ions, thus driving
the pH down. The daily rhythm can amount to 0.4pH units (250%), and the
difference between estuaries and the open sea as much as 1-2 units (1000-10,000%).
It is important to keep this in mind, as one can find healthy calcification
in shells in these conditions. When seas become eutrophied (overnourished),
they also become more acidic due to high levels of decomposing bacteria
and their work. Particularly coastal seas show this.

The most important limiting factor in aquatic ecosystem is the dearth
of hydrogen ions (H+), which has also been overlooked. The
more acidic the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and
the denser the amount of life. In the sea this is borne out by the observed
fact that highly productive upwelling areas are more acidic [note
1 below]. In other words, acidic seas are a good thing.

A serious scientific mistake was not
recognising that decomposition cannot completely break organic matter
down into inorganic salts. There are conversion losses and the second
law of thermodynamics forbids this. So there is an intermediate organic
molecule that is neither a nutrient for plants (dissolved salts), nor food
for bacteria. My measurements showed that the sea is awash in this mysterious
substance that I named slush. In fact the biomass in slush
is far larger than all life on Earth combined. Reader
please note that this is a very serious omission by mainstream science,
and cannot be disproved! The other 5 laws tie in closely with this.

Life on this planet would never have been possible, if slush could
not be decomposed further. The only way for this to happen is when plants
team up with decomposing bacteria in the act of symbiotic decomposition,
where the missing energy is supplied by the plant to allow decomposers
to complete the last step in decomposition. This explains how corals can
grow where nutrients are severely limited, and it explains why seaweeds
are more productive with symbiotic decomposition than without.

The most important benefit obtained from symbiotic decomposition is
firstly hydrogen ions, since these are in shortest supply, and secondly
nutrients, and finally CO2 in a form ready to use. The hydrogen ions lower
pH on the skins of marine plants (and some phytoplankton), as well as on
the skins of coral polyps. In this cocoon of reduced pH, these organisms
can be more productive than without.

The above discoveries are not trivial and affect everything we know about
the sea and the planet, requiring urgent attention from mainstream scientists.
As you may now understand, I smelled in the whole issue of ocean acidification
as recounted by so many scientists, a dead rat. How can it possibly agree
with my 40 years of observation underwater, and my latest discoveries?
To say the least, it is highly exaggerated, and quite possibly entirely
wrong. In this chapter you will investigate this further with me.

Since it was first published, a tsunami of me-too publications have
seen print, but objective analysis from a wide angle of perspective, is
still missing. Most scientific articles are not free, as if scientists
have so much to hide. But fortunately the two most important ones are still
free, Impacts of ocean acidification .. report of a workshop by NSF,
NOAA, USGS (PDF) by J A Kleypas et al. and a clumsy report from the
Royal Society UK: Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide (PDF) but which has high educational value. Much has
been done with computer models, but these are only as valid as their underlying
assumptions, and can neither be proved right nor wrong.

Note1: In upwelling areas,
cool deep water reaches the photic (light-) zone. This water is more acidic
and it also contains nutrients. Those nutrients were produced from sinking
biomatter that became decomposed by bacteria, in the dark underneath the
photic zone. As the nutrients became available as soluble salts, also the
water became more acidic (less alkaline). In the process, also more CO2
dissolved into the water. When the deep water reaches the surface, the
nutrients start plankton blooms which also make the water more alkaline,
which in turn limits productivity. However, it is observed that upwelling
areas remain relatively acidic, thereby promoting productivity. It could
also be that a high turnover of nutrients, possible by active planktonic
decomposition, lowers pH in upwelling areas.

ConclusionIt is assumed that you have read part 2 carefully and part 3
cursorily (superficially) before reading the conclusion here, so read it
again later.

When I am teaching about the sea, in class or standing on the intertidal
rocky shore, I am faced with the question of what is the most important
thing to remember about the sea. What is the most important thing I learnt
in 40 years?

Nothing in the sea works as expected:its physics, chemistry, biochemistry, physiology,
biology and ecology do not work as thought;truth is often opposite to intuition.The sea is weirder than we can possibly
imagine.To learn about the sea, forget what you
were taught at school, open your mind and begin from scratch.

It is an important message that I want you to take home and keep in
the back of your mind whenever you read about marine science or planetary
science. It is a message for scientists too.

Dead
planet thinking: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the
planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described
and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life
frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting
to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its
unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel
the secrets of the sea.

Opening with these thoughts, the (bio)chemistry of the sea is so
complicated and unknown that the scare for acidic oceans is entirely unjustified.
It is true that humans should act from a position of humility and prudence,
adjusting to nature while never exploiting more than 30% of the environment
but we have gone far over that limit. Today nature is adjusting to us and
we cannot change that without a much smaller human population and much
less waste (CO2 is part of human waste). Well, that is not going to happen.
So we have to accept that nature is now changing. An important part of
that is an increase of the life-bringing gas carbondioxide. With higher
CO2 levels, plants will produce more. Hopefully the world will become warmer
too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become
more acidic, they will become more productive too, adjusting to the new
scenario. There will be no 'tipping points' but there could be some unexpected
and unforeseen surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to major
changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by
fossil fuel will be relatively small.

As far as the science of ocean acidification goes, there are some major
errors and conflicts, and the amount of missing knowledge is much larger
than what we know. Scientists have uncritically accepted the findings of
the IPCC with critically low 'pre-industrial' levels of CO2, but has anyone
tried to grow plants and seedlings at 180ppmv CO2?

Kleypas et al (2006) state "It is certain that net production
of CaCO3 will decrease in the future", and then place at highest priority
for future research "Determine the calcification response to elevated
CO2 in . . [just about every marine organism with a shell]", and "..
in
many cases even the sign of the biochemical response, let alone the magnitude,
is uncertain". Clearly this is an unscientific and contradictory
statement in the light of present ignorance (not knowledge). Their advice
is to do more studies in elevated CO2, but will they also look at reduced
levels of 180ppm (the hypothetical pre-industrial level)? It is not in
their list of recommendations.
Will they also evaluate my own discoveries of slush and symbiotic
decomposition by which organisms live inside a 'cocoon' of lower pH
for higher productivity? Not likely - they have ignored it completely since
2005.

What annoys me is that an entirely hypothetical threat is blown up out
of all proportions, while at the same time the foremost threat to our seas,
that of degradation (eutrophication), remains insufficiently acknowledged
and investigated. In the world's degrading coastal seas, many questions
can be studied that also relate to ocean acidification, for acidification
is also a symptom of degradation. What is the main threat to the world's
coral
reefs - hypothetical decalcification or actual degradation?

If this chapter has been of use to you, tell others, as many as you
can, so that they too may benefit. Link to this page to help people find
it. And if you are financially comfortable, consider making a donation
to encourage this work.

anthropogenic: (Gk: anthropos= human being; genere=to
create) man-made, in the case of carbon dioxide, by burning fossil fuels,
burning forests, degrading soils, making cement, etc.
aragonite: (from Aragon, a place in Spain) a needle-like
(orthorhombic) crystal structure of limestone CaCO3 with some variations,
as produced by most molluscs and corals. Aragonite dissolves more easily
than calcite.
aragonite horizon: aragonite is the kind of limestone that shells
are made of. It dissolves into seawater if the concentration of carbonate
ions CO3 is too low. The boundary concentration is called the aragonite
horizon, which becomes more pronounced with depth. Note that this entirely
a hypothetical concept, the relevance of which to calcifying organisms,
has not been demonstrated.
calcification: turning calcium and carbonate ions into hard
calcium carbonate (calcite) or similar hard limestone (aragonite)
calcite: another word for calcium carbonate, laid down by organisms
like coralline algae, some sponges, some plankton organisms, and many others.
It may occur as fibrous, granular, lamellar, or compact. Marble is a form
of calcite.
calcite horizon: calcite is a hardy form of calcium carbonate
(see above). It dissolves when the concentration of carbonate ions becomes
less than the calcite horizon. The calcite horizon has a lower concentration
of carbonate ions than the aragonite horizon because calcite does not dissolve
as readily. Note that this is an entirely hypothetical concept.
DIC: Dissolved Inorganic Carbon: all inorganic carbon molecules
and ions like CO2, HCO3, CaCO3. It also contains slush and dissolved
polysaccharides
and any biomatter that passes through filtration paper (e.g. small bacteria
and viruses).
equilibrium: many chemical reactions can go both ways, resulting
in an equilibrium that can be disturbed.
magnesium calcite: a soft limestone that includes magnesium
ions Mg in the place of calcium Ca.
nacre: the mother-of -pearl limestone inside shells. Nacre does
not decalcify (dissolve) as readily as calcite and aragonite.
polysaccharides: a collective name for sugar-like molecules
including storage polysaccharides such as starch and glycogen and structural
polysaccharides such as cellulose and chitin. In the sea the protective
slime of organisms is often made of polysaccharides. Many kinds of polysaccharide
exist.
RDOC: Recalcitrant or Resistant Dissolved Organic Carbon, a
collection of biomolecules and other particles that resist being decomposed
by natural bacteria, equivalent to the substance named slush by
us (see below)
sequestration: (L: sequestrare= to commit for safekeeping)
the process by which substances are taken out of circulation, as in the
carbon cycles.
slush: (slush as in partly molten snow, named by Floor
Anthoni) a collection of short biomolecules that remain as a result of
incomplete decomposition. For some reason these molecules are difficult
to decompose into nutrients without an additional source of energy. The
most simple of these is perhaps dimethylsulfide CH3.S.CH3. Dimethylsulfide
(DMS) is a cloud forming molecule that plays a decisive role in the Earth's
temperature regulation. Note that scientists discovered Recalcitrant Dissolved
Organic Carbon (RDOC) about a decade ago. It is probably identical to our
slush.
(see publications supporting or refuting
Anthoni's findings)

Further readingThe scientific literature and Internet are awash in articles relating
to ocean acidification, mainly as part of a world-wide scare for global
warming. Most are repeats of what others wrote, superficial and scare-mongering,
and not worthy of mentioning here. Of the scientific articles, most are
not freely available. So, here is a collection of the ones worthy of your
attention.

Kleypas J A et al. (2006): Impacts of ocean acidification
on coral reefs and other marine calcifiers. Free from www.isse.ucar.edu/florida/www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
(10MB, free) An honest account, including uncertainties and missing knowledge.
A must-read. Unfortunately focuses on calcification rather than ecosystem
functioning. Also gives an historic timeline and chronicles all organisations
involved.

Royal Society UK, Raven, J A et al. (2005): Ocean
acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Royal
Society Policy Document 12/05; 55pp; available free at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539
Educational but a dishonest account, failing to mention uncertainties and
missing science. Lacking experimental facts. "Ocean acidification is a
powerful reason, in addition to that of climate change, for reducing global
emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage
to the oceans. We recommend that all possible approaches be considered
to prevent CO2 reaching the atmosphere. - excellence in science -" [sigh]

Wikipedia article 'ocean acidification' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Written by the scaremongers without balance. Provides many links to suppportive
science and many media articles and even an upcoming scare movie. A
link to the Seafriends balanced article is consistently removed. No doubting
or uncertainties allowed!

http://www.ucar.edu/
National Centre for Atmospheric Researchhttp://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539Ocean
acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Royal Society
UK (2005)http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean3aug03,0,3589668.storyA
Chemical Imbalance: Growing seawater acidity threatens to wipe out coral,
fish and other crucial species worldwide. By Usha Lee McFarling, Times
Staff Writer, August 3, 2006. A Los Angeles Times horror story, grossly
exaggerated, but typical of what was published by most media.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
The 'authoritative' Wikipedia article about ocean acidification. Very
one-sided. A link to the Seafriends article you have been reading,
is systematically being removed. Info-fascism at work? So it is important
to tell others about our more objective and educational article. Create
links. Update Dec 2009: an IPCC affiliate, William
Connolley has been editing thousands of Wikipedia entries for the sake
of Anthropogenic Global Warming, thereby grossly compromising the integrity
of Wikipedia - a major scandal.